Perpetual Energy Machine Getting Lots of Attention 965
Many users have written to tell us about a magnetic machine promising "infinite clean energy". Engadget has the first picture of the device and is reporting that the announcement (along with a short video) of this supposed device will be released later tonight. "CEO Sean McCarthy tells SilconRepublic how it works. Namely, the time variance in magnetic fields allows the Orbo platform to 'consistently produce power, going against the law of conservation of energy which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.' He goes on to say 'It's too good to be true but it is true. It will have such an impact on everything we do. The only analogy I can give is if you had absolute proof that God wasn't real.'" In my experience if something seems too good to be true it generally is. I wouldn't get your hopes up.
As they say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, why is anyone outside of Art Bell and George Noorey even giving this guy the time of day?
Wrong month. (Score:1, Insightful)
Nice try, though.
Re:As they say... (Score:3, Insightful)
Kernel of truth in this (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:As they say... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a lot like when people used to let high school math coaches claim to have solved Fermat's Little Theorem. We all knew they didn't, but there's a lot to be said for the puzzle of locating the coaches' mistakes.
Now, like you, I think this guy is a snake oil shill, as opposed to someone making a legitimate error. Nonetheless, I find his device bizarrely fascinating specifically because I don't see his particular cheat just yet. And, as such, I'm glad to have exposure to the nonsense. It's fun.
Re:As they say... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you invented something like that, you would be in secret negotiations with governments, militaries and major corporations. You wouldn't be wasting your time with youtube demonstrations and internet articles. You'd be involved in secret demonstrations with signed NDAs all around and massive bidding wars.
Re:As they say... (Score:4, Insightful)
The outlook that makes you put this comment in, assures that governments, militaries, and major corporations wouldn't give you the time of day. They would never know you succeded because they would never look at what you produced in the first place.
Youtube demonstrations and internet articles would likely be the only way you would be able to stir up enough of a buzz to get someone to take you half seriously in the first place.
Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? (Score:3, Insightful)
There's some really strong evidence that God isn't real. There's no strong evidence that PPM work. In fact, there's a number of things about the universe which strongly suggest that PPM are impossible, just as there's some things which strong suggest God is impossible. Really, even from a 'making an analogy' point of view: this machine is like having proof God exists.
Re:As they say... (Score:4, Insightful)
I bet the total energy output of this device's expected mtbf isn't big enough to cover the machine's construction in the first place. Thus, moot.
If it were real... (Score:5, Insightful)
Free Energy != Instant Hoax (Score:1, Insightful)
Mind you, the guy's website is short on details, and long on hype and begging for money, like most hoaxers. So, I'm not holding my breath.
Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? (Score:3, Insightful)
What's interesting isn't whether either can exist, but what causes some people to believe them, and the belief apparently being strengthened in face of logical arguments to the contrary. I find it fascinating.
Re:Breaking the Law (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Free Energy != Instant Hoax (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Mr. Madison... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? (Score:1, Insightful)
Also, most 'logical arguments' I've seen against God aren't really very logical. They're based either on a poor understanding of the Bible (which is certainly not limited to non-believers!) or assumptions which haven't been granted. Please don't flame me, as I'm not saying anyone is 'right' or 'wrong' about their faith. (yes, 'logical' 'rational' atheists also base their beliefs on faith, just as much as 'logical' 'rational' theists do.)
Re:As they say... (Score:4, Insightful)
It is the wrong kind of attention (buzz). It is the kind of attention that confirms to the people who matter that you're just another crackpot. If this were for real, he'd be going though a university or trying to get published in respected journal directly. But it isn't for real. So he just shrouds the device in secrecy in order to avoid the direct analysis that would expose the device for the hoax it most likely is.
Bottom line is, if you've patented your idea, there is absolutely no reason to keep things secret and arrange for elaborate public "demonstrations." You just put the whole idea out there, drawings, equations, theory and all.
-matthew
Re:What a complete waste of everyone's time (Score:4, Insightful)
Although I agree with your statement for the most part, It is short sided to say "NEVER EVER EVER NEVER NEVER EVER". There have been a lot of things that scientist (and others) claimed could never happen, just to be proven wrong in the future (ie we can never go faster than the speed of sound). We have a few hundred years,if that, of "modern" science under our belts. In a few million years, our level of knowledge will be a lot closer to a caveman then a scientist. Never say never.
Re:As they say... (Score:5, Insightful)
An outside force you say. Would someone trying to steal its kinetic energy to generate energy possibly be such a force?
Just wondering.
Re:Not really perpetual motion, though. (Score:3, Insightful)
And what do they have ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As they say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As they say... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm doubtful. At least in my experience, most modern atheists do not assert the non-existence of God, but merely do not accept theistic world views. Absence of belief does not require faith.
Re:As they say... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) They fail to exhibit a schematic for the device. And no, this would not hurt their chances of getting a patent at least in US: they can get a provisional patent almost automatically, then spend a year improving their research.
2) They fail to submit to peer review of any kind. Again, it's in their interests to publish this as soon as they can, since this would also automatically establish their priority and give them a year to continue research and apply for a patent (and will not count as prior art for their patent for that one year).
3) They fail to do any kind of transparent demonstration of their claims. Now they won't even release a video that they filmed themselves! FTFA: "Well, 6pm London time has come and gone. However, Steorn's site now says that the video will go live at 6pm "Eastern Time.""
Re:As they say... (Score:3, Insightful)
You're out to lunch (Score:5, Insightful)
This device which is really nothing more nor less than the exact same technology that NASA uses for orbital flyby which is how we get probes into deep space is just an application in electromagnetic fields rather than G fields.
Now as to those making jokes about the first and second laws of thermodynamics. If an object at rest remains at rest unless acted on by an outside force and an object in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.... Is this not by definition perpetual motion? It keeps on doing whatever until forever.... Pretty obvious folks.
Of course those who oppose the idea that we can arrive at energy by some means such as this, openly preach to us that the whole universe erupted out of the head of a pin, [Big Bang anybody?] and are quite happy for all of its mass and all of its energy to have erupted out of nothing in that event. [Logic anybody?]
No I haven't done anything but point out the truth and that isn't troll.
What if it's true? (Score:3, Insightful)
What's more interesting is to think of what WOULD happen if it were true. How would the politics of the world change? Would it plunge the world into war? Would peace brake out?
As a thought experiment independent of this being true how would the world change in 3 months, 6 months, 6 years if unlimited engergy was discovered?
Re:As they say... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Breaking the Law (Score:3, Insightful)
Build a working model, and offer it and the plans to build more for public inspection by a variety of scientists.
Re:As they say... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, there might be a loophole in the universe that lets something like that work, but it's very, very, very unlikely.
Space probes do not make use of conservation-of-energy-breaking perpetual motion, they draw energy stored in the angular momentum of the planet they're looping around. Yes, you could do the same thing with a magnetic field but it would not be perpetual motion. The guy's statement about this device BEING perpetual motion implies that
a) he doesn't know what he's talking about or how the device actually works
b) he does know how the device actually works and he's lying, probably to scam someone
c) he's overthrown one of the very basic tenants of physics and we're going to have to go back to, oh, 1700 and start over.
d) the device doesn't work
Of those, d is by far the most likely, closely followed by a and b. C is, uh, unlikely.
Re:Not really perpetual motion, though. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You're out to lunch (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As they say... (Score:1, Insightful)
Physics is not a matter of opinion.
Build your own perpetual motion machine! (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that what solar cells are? 'Practical' perpetual energy? I know there are issues with the breakdown of materials, and eventual cooling of the sun, but if you invented the solar cell and called it a 'perpetual energy' machine, then where would you be? Much like where this guy is I suspect, being called a scam artist before you even get a chance to exhibit, being ignored because you weren't in negotiations with governments and pushing for NDAs.
I'm hoping that this will turn out to be something similar. I'm hoping that the demonstration will show way of harnessing energy we previously mostly ignored or didn't use the same way. We've got geothermal energy mostly untapped, wave energy mostly underfunded and immense, practically immeasurable energy flung by the sun into space, benefiting nobody. It isn't as if the energy sources don't exist, we just don't have the technology to tap most of the big ones yet.
The way I understand it, perpetual energy isn't even really impossible, sub-atomic particles pop into and out of existence all the time and sometimes get separated, thus Hawking radiation and for all practical purposes, perhaps all purposes, demonstrate perpetual motion. The trick would be in harnessing them, tricky bit that, what with the black holes and all. If you figure out how to do it you'd get a lot of cool points.
Failing any of the big payoff candidates like black holes or tapping the sun, maybe you could harness the magnetic properties of the earth? I think they're mostly a product of the earth's kinetic and maybe heat energy, they aren't truly perpetual, but it would be a neat trick to actually find a way to use them.
Yes, I know, this has the earmarks of a scam, but why not wait until we get a chance to find out more before we dismiss it entirely? You're not spending anything but your time, and to my way of thinking, anything that makes you think and reconsider your notions of what is possible is not a waste.
Re:As they say... (Score:3, Insightful)
Note that he says this specifically:
CEO Sean McCarthy tells SilconRepublic how it works. Namely, the time variance in magnetic fields allows the Orbo platform to "consistently produce power, going against the law of conservation of energy which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed." He goes on to say "It's too good to be true but it is true. It will have such an impact on everything we do. The only analogy I can give is if you had absolute proof that God wasn't real."
(boldface mine)
Re:As they say... (Score:2, Insightful)
Or maybe I'm just overly tired of that Alex Chiu douchebag and his special life ring or whatever that Slashdot blathered on about for a solid four years.
Power from the Moon's Gravity: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As they say... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure what you mean by the "energy storage" with natural magnets and rotational kinetic energy (Remember, the vast majority of ferrous material on this planet, and thus the source of the Earth's magnetic field, is in the core, not the crust), but there are techniques for using the Earth's magnetic field to produce energy. I saw a test of an apparatus on the NASA channel (Now that's good television) which used the spacecraft's movement through Earth's magnetic field to induce a current in a tether outside the spacecraft, which they then used to power stuff on board the spacecraft. But this was still not "free energy", because the magnetic field generated by the current interacted with that of Earth and decreased the spacecraft's velocity and altitude (as expected by NASA engineers and the law of conservation of Energy). This was mostly recoverable, though, because feeding current the other way through the cable increased the spacecraft's altitude again. The only way to get current out of a magnetic field is to move charged particles through it, which is convenient, because everything is made of charged particles. Energy must be expended to get those charged particles in motion in the first place, and once the current has been generated, the kinetic energy of the charged particles drops to zero.
My point is, even by harnessing the kinetic energy or magnetic properties or what have you of the cosmos, you do affect them in a small way. Try that fly-by trick enough, and Jupiter will fall out of orbit. Some energy in space looks "free", but in actuality it's really just "insanely cheap" energy.
Re:As they say... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:As they say... (Score:1, Insightful)
The particular cheat (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You're out to lunch (Score:2, Insightful)
It _is_ known (see Einstein's theory of relativity) and has been pretty well proven. The fact that you don't know it doesn't make it so.
Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm guessing you havent been on the internet very long. The majority of all online forums appear to contain atheists vehemently asserting the non-existence of God. It's like there's a Godwin's Law, but for atheistic evangelism.
Re:As they say... (Score:2, Insightful)
Note that I'm in no way endorsing this current chap's claims. But the answer to your question was too obvious to pass up.
Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? (Score:4, Insightful)
On the contrary, God being infinite and creation being finite necessarily separates Him from His creation. God being infinite is part of the essential definition of God. Being infinite also makes Him necessarily singular.
Yes, as is confirmed many times in the Bible (and probably Koran and Vedas). God is unchanging.
I'm not sure how he made this leap, but probably from temporal thinking. God's consciousness is infinite and transcends time, while we progress linearly through time. God's actions in the finite world, like the creation itself which comes from Him, are finite manifestations of the infinite. God's love and God's actions don't imply change in Him, only a change in us relative to Him.
Re:Use finesse (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Use finesse (Score:3, Insightful)
And it doesn't break any laws of thermodynamics. Not more as a simple dynamo or a magnetic brake.
From http://www.steorn.com/orbo/claim/ [steorn.com]:
"The sum of these claims for our Orbo technology is a violation of the principle of conservation of energy"
"The technology has a coefficient of performance greater than 100%"
That's 2 out of the three lawys of thermodynamics broken, by my count.
Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: (Score:4, Insightful)
1: The moon pulling a bunch of water towards it (tide 1) 2: The centripetal force caused by the fact that the centre of rotation of the system is off-centre with relation to the centre of the Earth (tide 2) A 3m shift in tectonic plates every day is going to cause a bunch of earthquakes isn't it?
Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that trying to apply set theory to the question of the existence of God isn't just a bit ludicrous, IMHO. The same goes for the Axiom of Choice, Godel's incompleteness theorem, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle; all of which I've seen dragged into and horribly misused in philosophical and theological arguments.
Re:As they say... (Score:5, Insightful)
On a side note, the demonstration has been canceled due to technical issues. I suppose "is impossible" would qualify as a technical issue.
Re:As they say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. But who decides what is signal and what is noise? Majority? This machine is most likely a stunt or scam. But so is the "Global warming" myth but that doesn't stop articles about it.
Wading through the noise is not pleasant but you get to choose what is noise and what is signal. It is this wading and deciding that truly makes you informed. Not right but informed. The alternative is that a few censors get to rule what is noise or signal. Decisions based on the views of an uninformed majority (The earth is flat) or the views of a few with an agenda. Either way, without noise you never know what the signal is.
Windmills (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? (Score:2, Insightful)
Which, of course, nullifies any concept of free will. For example, take the story of Eden. If what you say is true, God tempted Eve with the apple, but he did so knowing full well what her decision would be, because, hey, he transcends time. IOW, knowing the outcome already, he manipulated her into sinning (why he would do that is another question entirely).
And this principle applies universally. The bible claims that humanity was given free will, that we would come to God of our own chosing. But God, being transcendant of time, knows every choice and every action I will ever perform, and can manipulate me as he sees fit. Therefore, I can't possibly have free will, as all my choices, from God's perspective, are entirely predetermined.
Re:Yes and No (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? (Score:2, Insightful)
Their Disclaimer... (Score:2, Insightful)
However, the proof of the pudding is under the crust. Have a look a their Disclaimer [steorn.com], which says it all:
"Steorn and its suppliers further do not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within the Materials or Ideas."
Indeed.
magnets (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you gave me a true list of everything you did yesterday, does my knowledge of your actions nullify the free will you had in doing them? Of course not. What if I invented a time machine and traveled back to the beginning of yesterday? Does my time machine nullify your free will? It would only nullify your free will if I shared that information with you (which is why God doesn't typically share that information with us). The idea that foreknowledge implies determinism is based solely on the experience of our temporal life, since for OUR knowledge, that correlation DOES usually exist. But it is a fallacy to extrapolate that correlation to one transcendent of time.
To put it another way, distinguishing between God's past knowledge and God's future knowledge is an artificial distinction. The challenge in thinking about God is in the constraints we put on our thinking that arise from our close association with time and space.
Re:As they say... (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks for the laugh. With luck I'll still be around in 50 years to see that your wrong. The IPCC [www.ipcc.ch], which is cited by Global Warming alarmists as the symbol of scientific consensus suggests that by 2100 sea levels will rise between 9-37cm from 1990 to 2100. Check the report yourself here [grida.no] if you don't believe me. The Maldive Islands are 2.3m above sea level, on average. A worst case rise of 19cm in the next 50 years then, would certainly have an impact. It is utter hyperbole though to suggest that they'll disappear under the ocean.
It's ridiculous claims like yours that causes people to dismiss Global Warming as a myth, since arguments like yours have as much scientific basis as the notion that global climate is actually cooling.
Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? (Score:4, Insightful)
If atheism is a belief system then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
That's a catchy quip, but suppose someone doesn't just happen not to collect stamps. Rather, they go around ridiculing and/or debating stamp collectors, lobbying the postal service to stop printing collectible stamps, encouraging others to start hanging around wehatestampcollecting.org to get a better idea of what anti-stamp-collectors are all about, and so on. It's what they like to do with their free time, kind of like... a hobby. Likewise, if you hold to the belief that there are exactly zero gods, and base your actions in life on that theological assertion, some people might describe that as your belief system.
Re:2nd Law convenient when you want it to be (Score:4, Insightful)